A Kinder Murder

The orderly heard Lecter whispering
to him, all afternoon, and Miggs
crying. They found him at bed check.
He'd swallowed his own tongue... .
Lecter did it to amuse himself.
--Silence of the Lambs

If a guy wants to commit suicide, is it illegal to agree with him? Obviously, the answer is no: One can agree or disagree with anything. But what about telling the guy you agree with him? Telling him you think it's a good idea? Encouraging him?

In Minnesota, William F. Melchert-Dinkel, a former nurse, stands accused of assisted suicide. In fairness, the details of Melchert-Dinkel's case make him look less like Dr. Kevorkian than Charles Manson. Melchert-Dinkel, you see, didn't work with terminally ill patients in unbearable pain; he trolled internet chat rooms conversing with the suicidal under a variety of personae. Frequently, he offered advice on the best way to off oneself. He also pretended to be suicidal himself and made suicide pacts with his interlocutors. Authorities can link him fairly definitively to two suicides, one in Canada and one in Great Britain, but Melchert-Dinkel has admitted that he probably contributed to the suicides of several others.

Now, Melchert-Dinkel is undeniably creepy. There's something in his actions reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter's coercing "Multiple" Miggs into his fatal seizure. It makes us wonder, though, about one's legal--as opposed to ethical--obligations to the suicidal. WOS makes the point that people who go to these websites are, whether they admit it or not, seeking help. Even if a person emphatically declares his suicidal intentions, the very act of publicizing these intentions is on some level a plea to be stopped: The truly suicidal don't talk, they do.

So, assuming that Melchert-Dinkel tipped someone's mental balance from salvation to perdition, does that make him guilty in the eyes of the law? We are not so sure, even if the state has on its books a law against assisted suicide. To put it another way, is encouraging someone to kill himself akin to assisting him? And what constitutes "encouragement"? "Go on! Kill yourself. You're worthless, and the world would be better off without you." Probably. "I can see why you want to kill yourself, and it makes sense to me." Gray area. "I don't know. I wouldn't do it, but it's up to you." We think not.

What's particularly troubling about this case is the fact that Melchert-Dinkel didn't just offer encouragement; he pretended to be suicidal himself. He convinced people that he would in some sense join them in their final act. If that was the ultimate factor that convinced these people to take the plunge, does that make Melchert-Dinkel more culpable? Would it have made a difference if Melchert-Dinkel had truly been suicidal but then changed his mind?

On the one hand, this man is nothing more than a serial killer with a fascinating M.O. On the other hand, the authorities need to be wary of decisions that effectively criminalize speech. We know and agree that there must be limits on free speech, such as proscriptions against yelling fire in a crowded theater. But if a theater is already engulfed in flames, and someone decides he wants to stay and burn, is it a criminal act to tell him you think it's a good idea?